Sorry Beag, we've got out of sync, I was answering Marduk's statement that Giza isn't desert. My dictionary defines a desert as waste, uncultivated, and as I'm not into re-writing the English language Giza is desert.
Beagle wrote:He mentioned, in a conversation with GH, that the Mediterranean Sea was dry at the end of the last ice age.
Sea levels were lower but it wasn't dry.
Can't find a map off hand, but the main differences were Malta and Sicily joined to Italy, the top half of the Adriatic dry, and many of the Aegean islands larger. The coastline round the eastern Med though would have looked much like it does today.
Beagle wrote:He mentioned, in a conversation with GH, that the Mediterranean Sea was dry at the end of the last ice age.
Sea levels were lower but it wasn't dry.
Can't find a map off hand, but the main differences were Malta and Sicily joined to Italy, the top half of the Adriatic dry, and many of the Aegean islands larger. The coastline round the eastern Med though would have looked much like it does today.
btw I thought Giza was a suburb of Cairo
Hi Essan. Thanks for the input. I'just been checking depth levels of the area. It looks like quite a bit of real estate above water. If I nail it down I'll post it.
If you've got a map that's great.
I don't get the Giza thing, something Digit was asking. But all of Egypt is desert of course. It's not sand, it's rainfall. I believe the Antarctic is classified as a desert, but I'd have to check.
How did we get from Abydos back to Giza? They are about 300 miles apart.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Giza is a suburb of Cairo Essan, now, it wasn't always so. Even as late as the 1920s a trip from Cairo to the pyramids involved a somewhat uncomfortable journey. Beag, if you check back to Marduk's last post my comments will make sense. I hope!
Giza is a suburb of Cairo Essan, now, it wasn't always so. Even as late as the 1920s a trip from Cairo to the pyramids involved a somewhat uncomfortable journey
hey you're living in the past again
one thing that does define deserts Roy and thats this
deserts very very very rarely have the worlds longest and the worlds thirds largest river running through them
hehehe
A dry desert is defined as that area which receives less than, I believe, 10ins of preciptation. Even if the area was to be heavily irrigated and produced vast acreages of crops it would still be classified as a dry land desert. The existance of the Nile does not alter that classification. The images on Google show nothing but sand outside of the irrigated areas and any vegetation in the area is classified as desert species.
Ipso facto, it's a desert.
Egypt has deserts
they are clearly marked on the map
Giza is on the shores of the med and on the banks of the nile
as such the average rainfall is not a factor
Because desert is a vague term, the use of 'dryland', and its subdivisions of hyper arid, arid, semiarid and dry-subhumid, is to be preferred, and is approved by the United Nations
Giza is far from Dry
Cairo is not a desert city Roy
if you look at a map of egypt the desert areas are clearly marked
i.e. they have names
personally I think it comes down to this
if you're in a desert and you arent carrying water you will die
if youre at Giza and youre not carrying water you can buy Evian at a local vendor
You're missing the point Marduk, even if you were swimming in an oasis you would still be in a desert. The definition I gave isn't mine it's the one used to define areas of aridity. I'm not living in the past I simply pointed out that Cairo has expanded.
The Osireion is located at Abydos, behind, below and connected to the Temple of Seti I. When archaeologists like Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray were working at Abydos in the early 20th century, they discovered the Osireion by accident while excavating Seti's Temple. The Osireion was originally constructed at a much lower level than the foundations of Seti's temple, and although orthodox Egyptologists regard the two as contemporary, there is ample evidence that this is definitely NOT the case. This evidence will be discussed later in this section.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
you know the guy who wrote that believes that Moses was actually Tutmoses II
apparently he belives in fairy tales
next he'll be telling you the osirieon was where they kept the ark of the covenenant
But some "irreverent" archaeologists have held their ground and continue to fight for the Osireion’s extreme antiquity. Why, they contend, would Seti I have needed to design his mortuary temple in an anomalous "L" shape unless he was forced to because the Osireion was already in its present location and his temple would have run right smack into it? Furthermore, why are the temple’s design and its gigantic blocks different from any structure previously discovered in Egypt?
It's not at all confusing to see the difference in the two structures when vviewed from Google Earth.
This site seems to suggest that Seti deliberately built his new temple on the site of an older temple in an effort to restore the area which had suffered during the reign of Akhenaten.
An interesting idea.....there seem to be parallels in Egyptian history at least according to Schoch.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
